Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Medical

1. Heard Mr. Som Kartik Shukla learned counsel for petitioner, learned state counsel for opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Mohit Chandra Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Punit Chandra learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 7th January 2025 to the extent it indicates that this court has directed petitioner to remain engaged only uptil 31st March, 2025. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to continue engagement of petitioner till he attains 70 years of age and for a direction to opposite parties to pay arrears of salary since 1st April, 2025 till allowing petitioner to join the duties in the hospital has also been sought.

3. Earlier petitioner had filed Writ A No. 11809 of 2024 challenging the order of termination/dismissal dated 10th September, 2024.

4. The aforesaid termination order had been passed on the allegation that petitioner who was working as Medical Officer in UP Provincial Medical Services on contract basis had been involved in accepting illegal gratification from patient for conducting a cataract operation.

5. By means of interim order dated 17th December, 2024, this court came to a prima facie conclusion that the order of termination had been passed on the basis of a report but it did not implicate the petitioner for demand or accepting illegal gratification. 2 WRIA No. 4139 of 2025

6. In paragraph No.5 of the interim order, the court recorded its considered opinion that it was open for the opposite parties to have invoked clause 5 of the contract and terminated service without detailing or narrating the incident which was the basis and subject matter of inquiry in the consequent termination order but once the contract has been ended on the basis of stigma attached to the petitioner, it could not have been done until and unless there was a clear unequivocal evidence available on record.

7. It was in such terms that interim protection was granted to petitioner making it clear that that the interim order would operate only till the term of contract and not beyond. The interim order dated 17th December 2024 passed in writ A No. 11809 of 2024 is as follows:- "1. Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was previously working as Medical Officer in U.P. Provincial Medical Services and subsequent to his superannuation on 30.1.2016 he was appointed as Eye Consultant in District Hospital, Raebareli on contract basis on 1.1.2017. The said contract of the petitioner was renewed from year to year till passing of the impugned order dated

10.9.2024 by which his contract has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has been found to be involved in accepting illegal gratification from a patient for conducting a cataract operation. In the impugned order which has been passed by Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow on 10.9.2024 it has been stated that a news item was published by which it was stated that the petitioner has accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4300/- for conducting an operation. The respondents on coming to know of the said incident had appointed an inquiry committee to look into the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner.

3. The inquiry report has been placed before this Court by learned Standing counsel according to which statement of the complainant as well as the stand of the petitioner was duly considered by the said committee. The petitioner in his submissions before the committee had denied the allegations and submitted that he was not the doctor who conducted operation of the mother of the complainant. In fact, the operation was performed upon her by another doctor, namely Dr. Shakya. He has further submitted that through online transaction dated 8.4.2024 a sum of money was transferred to his account which information he received when on 10.4.2024 he went to the branch of the said bank where he was informed that the said transfer has wrongly been done and 3 WRIA No. 4139 of 2025 the amount credited to his account has to be returned back from where it was sent. The complainant, on the other hand, had clearly stated that it was the petitioner who had taken illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- for conducting the cataract operation and considering the aforesaid material the inquiry committee came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material to implicate the petitioner for accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant for conducting surgery on his mother and further opined that there is no direct link between the operation conducted on the mother of the complaint and demand made by the petitioner. It is on the aforesaid inquiry report that the impugned order has been passed.

4. Considering the aforesaid report, it is clear that even the inquiry report did not implicate the petitioner for demand or accepting illegal gratification and in absence of any unequivocal finding against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in demand of illegal gratification, the impugned order terminating the contract could not have been passed. It is submitted that even otherwise the contract of the petitioner was till 31.3.2025.

5. We have also perused the terms of the contract which provides that service of the petitioner can be terminated at once by giving one month's notice unless and until there are clear allegation of fraud or involvement of the petitioner in any offence. This Court is of the considered opinion that it was open for the respondents to have invoked clause 5 and terminated his service without detailing or narrating the incident on the basis of the incident which was the subject matter of the inquiry but once they have thought it fit to end the contract on the basis of implication of the petitioner for demand of illegal gratification then unless and until there was clear and unequivocal evidence available on record, the impugned order could not have been passed. In light of the above, the matter requires consideration. Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

6. List on 14.2.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.

8. It is made clear that passing of the interim order will not enable the petitioner to continue beyond the terms of the contract unless and until specific order is paced by the respondents in this regard or the contract of the petitioner is renewed. "

8. In the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025, it is evident that opposite parties have misconstrued the interim protection provided vide order dated 17 December 2024 to mean that contract of petitioner would continue only uptil 31st March 2025. 4 WRIA No. 4139 of 2025

9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 17th December, 2024, no such intention of this court is exhibited. On the contrary since admittedly the term of contract ended on 31st March 2025, the only protection granted was for continuance of petitioner on contract basis till the contract term came to an end and was not renewed.

10. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the conclusion drawn by this court in the interim order dated 17th December 2024, it is evident that petitioner's earlier contract was terminated on the basis of stigmatic allegations which were clearly unfounded and for which petitioner was also not afforded ample opportunity of hearing.

11. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 7th January 2025 having been passed on the misconception, is therefore quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to consider renewal or extension of contract of petitioner on the post of Medical Officer without being influenced by the earlier order of termination of services or allegations levelled against him. The aspect for extension or renewal of contract shall be considered by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. The aspect of arrears of salary admissible to petitioner since 1st April 2025 shall also be considered by the authority concerned within the same time frame.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 20, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Som Kartik Shukla learned counsel for petitioner, learned state counsel for opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Mohit Chandra Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Punit Chandra learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 7th January 2025 to the extent it indicates that this court has directed petitioner to remain engaged only uptil 31st March, 2025. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to continue engagement of petitioner till he attains 70 years of age and for a direction to opposite parties to pay arrears of salary since 1st April, 2025 till allowing petitioner to join the duties in the hospital has also been sought.

3. Earlier petitioner had filed Writ A No. 11809 of 2024 challenging the order of termination/dismissal dated 10th September, 2024.

4. The aforesaid termination order had been passed on the allegation that petitioner who was working as Medical Officer in UP Provincial Medical Services on contract basis had been involved in accepting illegal gratification from patient for conducting a cataract operation.

5. By means of interim order dated 17th December, 2024, this court came to a prima facie conclusion that the order of termination had been passed on the basis of a report but it did not implicate the petitioner for demand or accepting illegal gratification. 2 WRIA No. 4139 of 2025

6. In paragraph No.5 of the interim order, the court recorded its considered opinion that it was open for the opposite parties to have invoked clause 5 of the contract and terminated service without detailing or narrating the incident which was the basis and subject matter of inquiry in the consequent termination order but once the contract has been ended on the basis of stigma attached to the petitioner, it could not have been done until and unless there was a clear unequivocal evidence available on record.

7. It was in such terms that interim protection was granted to petitioner making it clear that that the interim order would operate only till the term of contract and not beyond. The interim order dated 17th December 2024 passed in writ A No. 11809 of 2024 is as follows:- "1. Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was previously working as Medical Officer in U.P. Provincial Medical Services and subsequent to his superannuation on 30.1.2016 he was appointed as Eye Consultant in District Hospital, Raebareli on contract basis on 1.1.2017. The said contract of the petitioner was renewed from year to year till passing of the impugned order dated

10.9.2024 by which his contract has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has been found to be involved in accepting illegal gratification from a patient for conducting a cataract operation. In the impugned order which has been passed by Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow on 10.9.2024 it has been stated that a news item was published by which it was stated that the petitioner has accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4300/- for conducting an operation. The respondents on coming to know of the said incident had appointed an inquiry committee to look into the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner.

3. The inquiry report has been placed before this Court by learned Standing counsel according to which statement of the complainant as well as the stand of the petitioner was duly considered by the said committee. The petitioner in his submissions before the committee had denied the allegations and submitted that he was not the doctor who conducted operation of the mother of the complainant. In fact, the operation was performed upon her by another doctor, namely Dr. Shakya. He has further submitted that through online transaction dated 8.4.2024 a sum of money was transferred to his account which information he received when on 10.4.2024 he went to the branch of the said bank where he was informed that the said transfer has wrongly been done and 3 WRIA No. 4139 of 2025 the amount credited to his account has to be returned back from where it was sent. The complainant, on the other hand, had clearly stated that it was the petitioner who had taken illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- for conducting the cataract operation and considering the aforesaid material the inquiry committee came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material to implicate the petitioner for accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant for conducting surgery on his mother and further opined that there is no direct link between the operation conducted on the mother of the complaint and demand made by the petitioner. It is on the aforesaid inquiry report that the impugned order has been passed.

4. Considering the aforesaid report, it is clear that even the inquiry report did not implicate the petitioner for demand or accepting illegal gratification and in absence of any unequivocal finding against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in demand of illegal gratification, the impugned order terminating the contract could not have been passed. It is submitted that even otherwise the contract of the petitioner was till 31.3.2025.

5. We have also perused the terms of the contract which provides that service of the petitioner can be terminated at once by giving one month's notice unless and until there are clear allegation of fraud or involvement of the petitioner in any offence. This Court is of the considered opinion that it was open for the respondents to have invoked clause 5 and terminated his service without detailing or narrating the incident on the basis of the incident which was the subject matter of the inquiry but once they have thought it fit to end the contract on the basis of implication of the petitioner for demand of illegal gratification then unless and until there was clear and unequivocal evidence available on record, the impugned order could not have been passed. In light of the above, the matter requires consideration. Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

6. List on 14.2.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.

8. It is made clear that passing of the interim order will not enable the petitioner to continue beyond the terms of the contract unless and until specific order is paced by the respondents in this regard or the contract of the petitioner is renewed. "

8. In the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025, it is evident that opposite parties have misconstrued the interim protection provided vide order dated 17 December 2024 to mean that contract of petitioner would continue only uptil 31st March 2025. 4 WRIA No. 4139 of 2025

9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 17th December, 2024, no such intention of this court is exhibited. On the contrary since admittedly the term of contract ended on 31st March 2025, the only protection granted was for continuance of petitioner on contract basis till the contract term came to an end and was not renewed.

10. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the conclusion drawn by this court in the interim order dated 17th December 2024, it is evident that petitioner's earlier contract was terminated on the basis of stigmatic allegations which were clearly unfounded and for which petitioner was also not afforded ample opportunity of hearing.

11. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 7th January 2025 having been passed on the misconception, is therefore quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to consider renewal or extension of contract of petitioner on the post of Medical Officer without being influenced by the earlier order of termination of services or allegations levelled against him. The aspect for extension or renewal of contract shall be considered by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. The aspect of arrears of salary admissible to petitioner since 1st April 2025 shall also be considered by the authority concerned within the same time frame.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 20, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench